Okay, ladies, this is a spin-off of Future Shock's post about women entrapping men by getting pregnant.

I wanted to know WHY this supposed "woman" shrink was so one-sided against women--- SURELY, a Wiki post somewhere existed that would explain why. I have found some images that are supposed to be her, but cannot be sure...

I propose that this "woman" is a fake.At least with Ann Coulter, you know she WAS born... This entity, well, do a little searching with Google, Bing, etc., and let me know if you find any REAL info other than blogs or articles purported to be written by her..

Here is an example of her "work". I did not slog through all of the videos, but the ones I watched were enough to tell me I didn't want to waste my time watching women hating on women... WHERE did they get these women? PAY THEM???

Women

A COLLECTION OF ARTICLES, VIDEOS, WEB SITE, AND OTHER RESOURCES BY WOMEN SPEAKING OUT AGAINST HATEFUL GENDER IDEOLOGY:

This page was created a few years ago and in the time since it was created the men’s movement has grown at an explosive rate, with not just men but women joining at a rate too fast to even keep up with. At this point there are far too many women involved in the men’s movement to list even a small fraction of them. However, here are a few videos and articles we think you may find salient, all by women:

VIDEOS

ARTICLES

Furthermore, if you are a woman who is interested in the Men’s Human Rights Movement, you may wish to particularly note the following articles by women on this site:

A Voice for Men is a hate site, plain and simple. Those dudes have some serious, serious issues. I cannot imagine what, short of a very bad case of Stockholm Syndrome, would possess a woman to get on board with the likes of them.

Not too long ago I had it out with a feminist who had come into a
male-safe space from a feminist blog just to scoff at the idea of male
disposability. She basically said that the entire concept was a myth,
that men’s lived experiences were completely wrong, and that they were
just a bunch of whiners who were complaining over nothing.

That got me thinking about the concept of male disposability and how
that interacts with the feminist movement. Male disposability has been
around since the dawn of time, and it’s based on one very very
straightforward dynamic: when it comes to the well-being of others,
women come first, men come last. This is just the way it has always
been. Seats in lifeboats, being rescued from burning buildings, who gets
to eat: really, society places men dead last every time, and, society
expects men to place themselves dead last every time.

Humans have always had a dynamic of “women and children first” and
that has not changed at all. The 93% workplace death gap has to be
evidence of this, if only because there’s nobody with any kind of
importance or power who’s interested in changing it at all. In fact I
remember reading an article in a British Columbia paper not long ago
that described the increasing proportion of female injuries on the job
as a huge problem, and the insane thing was the change reflected a
decrease in male injuries rather than an increase in female ones. Men’s
injuries on the job had gone down because the economic downturn had put
so many men out of work in the resource sector that there just weren’t
as many trees or pieces of heavy equipment falling on men as there had
been before. And yet, this was framed as a huge problem for women that
required immediate action to solve. It’s like if men aren’t dying at
work that 20 times the rate that women are, we must be doing something
wrong as a society.

Back when we were still living in caves that attitude was necessary
for human survival. Nature is a really harsh mistress, especially when
you think of all the animals that never get to die of old age. Things
were a lot different for humans through most of our history on this
planet than they are now. Life was dangerous, human settlements were
small, isolated from each other, and one big disaster that took out a
lot of women pretty much meant the end of the entire shebang for that
group of people. So really, the level of importance that a human
settlement placed on the well-being of women and children reflected
almost always how successful that settlement was. And that can be
expanded to encompass entire societies.

I keep hearing from the feminist camp that femaleness has always been
undervalued by society and that maleness is preferred. But I’ve always
contended that it’s the exact opposite: the feminine is intrinsically
and individually valuable, simply because females are the limited factor
in reproduction. When it comes to producing babies, every woman counts,
whereas biologically one very happy man could probably do the work of
hundreds in that regard. So the level of instinctive importance we
humans place on the safety and provisioning of women and their children
is one of the main reasons why we’ve been able to be so successful that
we’ve come to dominate this planet.

While I will concede that this drive to keep women safe from all harm
has often resulted in extreme limits being placed on women’s mobility,
their agency, their power of decision to direct their own lives, all
through history and many cultures, and in many cultures even today, I
think it’s telling that those cultures tend to be the most backward.
When you consider the restrictions placed on women in places like
Afghanistan, and then you consider that if we “bombed them into the
stone age” it might be progress, I think you could conclude that the
most successful societies had a good balance between allowing women
freedom and the ability to choose and direct their own paths in life,
and the need to protect them and provide for them.

However, feminists will insist that these kinds of restrictions being
placed on women in those kinds of societies are the ultimate form of
objectification. You lock up your possessions to make sure they will
never be lost or stolen or harmed. Honestly, if I were a guy on a
battlefield I might appreciate being objectified in that way. I think if
I was going to be an object, I’d rather be a sexual one or somebody’s
prized possession than an object that can simply be thrown in the trash
or smashed into pieces in the service of somebody else’s purpose.

Feminists also have a very simplistic idea that our willingness to
absolve women of their crimes, slap them on the wrist, spare them
punishment, comes from a deep disrespect society has for women’s
person-hood—not seeing them as full human beings capable of looking
after themselves, that we see them as children who don’t know any
better. And while there are parallels there in our desire to protect
both women and children from not only their own poor decisions but the
full consequences of their shitty behavior, it’s really not as simple as
they try to make it out to be.

Seriously, even today—even today in 2011!–we fully expect that if it
comes down to a man and a woman in a burning building and you can only
save one, the expectation is that you choose the woman every single
time. So honestly, whose humanity are we placing above whose here? We’re
not talking about going to work, we’re not talking about getting an
education, we’re not talking about freedom to decide what you want to be
in life. We’re not talking about getting to take Tae Kwon Do. We’re
talking seats in lifeboats here. The person in the lifeboat is going to
survive, no matter how capable or incapable they are of managing their
own life, and the person going down with the ship is going to die, no
mater how independent, self-sufficient and awesome he is. That’s the
equation: one life, more valuable than another, and the woman wins every
time.

So honestly, is there any argument, anywhere, that women’s humanity
has always been held in higher regard by society than men’s? To be
important to society, a woman merely has to be; a man has to do in order
for his life to have any meaning to anyone other than himself. I think
it was ManWomanMyth
who said our society reduces men from human beings to human doings. I
really think that’s an apt analogy. We measure a man’s worthiness to
wear the title of “man” and therefore the title of “human,” through how
useful he is, either to society or to women, and one of the most useful
things a man can do even now in the eyes of society is to put women and
children before himself.

While I think there is plenty of argument that this attitude is at
least partly innate—the way most survival traits are, even collective
ones—if it starts in the chromosomes we really do everything we can as a
society to reinforce this dynamic. Studies have shown that even though
baby boys tend to cry and fuss more than baby girls, parents are quicker
to attend to or console a baby girl than they are a baby boy. Even just
the level of acceptance of infant male circumcision in our culture,
when female genital mutilation was banned pretty much the first
afternoon we all heard it existed, really says a lot about the differing
expectations we have for males and females. Speaking as a mother, the
last thing I would ever have wanted was to hear my child cry, especially
when they’re at an age when they’re completely helpless, completely at
the mercy of outside forces, and utterly dependent on the adults in
their lives for every last thing, and yet even knowing how painful that
cut is, we expect baby boys only days old to just suck that up.

Just think about what these very first interactions and experiences,
these differences in how we nurture our babies depending on what gender
they are, what this teaches them: What do we teach baby girls when we
attend to their crying so quickly? We teach them to ask for help because
their needs are important. We teach them to let us know when they’re
afraid or in pain because it’s important for us to know when they’re
sick or in danger or hurt, so we can do something about it. We teach
them that when they’re sad or lonely to summon comfort and comfort will
be there. We teach them that they’re important. Their needs and
well-being, both emotional and physical, are important just because.

And what are we teaching baby boys when we leave them to cry? We
teach them that there’s not much point in seeking help because it will
be grudgingly given if at all We teach them that they should become
self-contained in their ability to deal with emotions like fear,
helplessness, loneliness, sadness, pain, distress: we teach them
stoicism. We teach them to suck it up. We teach them that their fear and
their pain are things that are best ignored. We teach them that their
emotional and physical well-being are just not as important as other
things.

Given all that, is it any wonder it’s like pulling teeth to get a man
to go to the doctor when he’s sick?

What we’re teaching that baby boy is all the things a man needs to
know and feel and believe about himself if he’s going to stand in front
of a cabin with a rifle while his wife and kids hide inside. We’re
preparing him for the day he has to fix a bayonet to a rifle and charge a
hill under enemy fire, and we’re preparing him to make a decision to
resign himself to an icy fate while women and children escape in the
lifeboats. We are teaching him to internalize his own disposability.

And baby girls? By attending to her crying so quickly, by letting her
know that she’s inherently important to us, we’re preparing her for the
day she has to think of her own safety first, even if it means the man
she loves is left standing alone with a rifle in front of a cabin. We’re
preparing her to take that seat in the lifeboat. We’re training her to
not allow guilt or empathy or acknowledgment of a man’s humanity, or any
sense that he might deserve it more, to convince her give her seat to
him. Because for millenia, the human species absolutely depended on her
feeling 100% entitled to that seat.

And that brings me to feminism. You know, the patriarchy smashers?
Those righteous avengers of equality? Dogged dismantlers of every single
gender role? What exactly is feminism doing to dismantle this
traditional role of the disposable male?

Feminism’s greatest victories have only reinforced in everyone that
society still owes women provision, protection, help and support just
because they’re women. In its collective dismissal and abandonment of
male victims of domestic violence, it only reinforces in men that it’s
pointless to ask for help, because men’s needs are of no relevance, and
their fear and pain don’t mean anything to anyone. Feminism teaches us
to put women’s need at the forefront of every single issue, political or
social. Whether that issue is domestic violence law, sexual assault
law, institutional sexism, social safety net, education funding,
homeless shelters, government funding for shovel-ready jobs—jobs that
didn’t stay shovel-ready once women got wind of them.

Everywhere you look—everywhere you look!–there are feminists pushing
their way to the front of the line demanding women’s “fair share” of all
of the goodies, the good stuff, the loot, the booty, the cookies. Even
if women don’t need it. Even if women don’t deserve it. And even if
somebody else needs it and deserves it more.

And they get it, because we give it to them.

Feminism has done nothing but exploit this dynamic of the expectation
on men to put everybody else before themselves. Especially women.
Women’s safety and support, women’s well-being, and women’s emotional
needs, always come first. This is the most stunning piece of
society-wide manipulative psychology I think I have ever come across.
Feminism has been down with old-school chivalry right from the start.
They might seem like strange bedfellows, but they’re not. Because both
concepts are built on a firm foundation of female self-interest.

We made our way as humans through a really harsh history and we
became the dominant force on this planet. One of the reasons we were so
successful is because we have consistently put women’s basic needs
first. Their need for safety, support, and provision. It was in
humanity’s best interest for women to be essentially self-interested,
and for men to be essentially self-sacrificing. But we don’t need that
dynamic anymore. Our species is in no danger of extinction. We’re 7
billion people clogging up the works here!

What’s the worst that could happen if we all just collectively
decided that men were no more disposable than women, and women were no
more valuable than men? In fact the greatest danger I see to us right
now is that in our desperation to bend over and give women everything
they want and everything they say they need, we’ve unbalanced society to
the point where we’re in danger of seriously toppling over.

And really? The only difference I see between the traditional role
and the new one for men with respect to disposability is that maleness,
manhood: it used to be celebrated, it used to be admired, and it used to
be rewarded, because it was really necessary, and because the personal
cost of it to individual men was so incredibly high.

But now? Now, we still expect men to put women first, and we still
expect society to put women first, and we still expect men to not
complain about coming in dead last every damn time. But men don’t even
get our admiration anymore. All they get in return is to hear about what
assholes they are. Is there any wonder why they’re starting to get
pissed off?

–Karen (AKA Girl Writes What)

__________________________________________________________________

Karen Straughan (better known by her screen name, girlwriteswhat)
is a Canadian men's rights activist, and divorced mother of three, who
is most famous for her videos on YouTube.
She also hosts a blog called Owning Your Shit. The primary
focus of her work is how she thinks feminism has failed to address the
discrimination faced by men in society (and, occasionally, has created
new problems, or exacerbated existing problems) and therefore cannot be
about equality. In short, she believes the current world we live in
treats women like children and men like assholes. Her channel can be
found here. Transcriptions
of her videos and other articles by her can also be found here.

__________________________________________________________________

Given that she did a live presentation to a convention full of Libertarians in New York (LINK), I think it rather unlikely that she's a guy dressing up as a woman.